Global Warming Potentialhttp://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/8257/all
enEPA Internal Audit Finds Flawed Pipeline Oversight Adds $192 Million a Year to Gas Bills, Harms Climatehttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/07/29/epa-internal-audit-finds-agency-s-flawed-pipeline-oversight-adds-192-million-year-gas-bills-harms-climate
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/shutterstock_181964972.jpg?itok=tOjoyuUW" width="200" height="134" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>On Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency's internal watchdog, the inspector general released a scathing report on the agency's failure to control leaks from the nation's natural gas distribution system.</p>
<p>The report, titled “<a href="http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20140725-14-P-0324.pdf">Improvements Needed in <span class="caps">EPA</span> Efforts to Address Methane Emissions From Natural Gas Distribution Pipelines</a>,” describes a string of failures by the <span class="caps">EPA</span> to control leaks of one of the most potent greenhouse gases, methane, from the rapidly expanding <a href="http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-111/issue-9/special-report-pipeline-economics/us-pipeline-operators-sink-revenue-growth-into-expansion.html">natural gas pipeline industry</a>.</p>
<p>“The <span class="caps">EPA</span> has placed little focus and attention on reducing methane emissions from pipelines in the natural gas distribution sector,” the report begins. “The <span class="caps">EPA</span> has a voluntary program to address methane leaks — Natural Gas <span class="caps">STAR</span> — but its efforts through this program have resulted in limited reductions of methane emissions from distribution pipelines.”</p>
<p>To date, the industry has faced little binding regulation on leaks, in part because the <span class="caps">EPA</span> assumes that pipeline companies will not allow the product they are attempting to bring to market to simply disappear. But the reality is that when gas is cheap and repairs are expensive, pipeline companies often put off repairs unless there's a threat of an explosion.<br /><br />
Under many state policies, pipeline companies would have to pay upfront costs for pipeline repairs — or they simply choose to pass the cost of lost gas from unrepaired leaks on to consumers, an issue that the audit faults the <span class="caps">EPA</span> for failing to take into account.</p>
<p>Nationwide, the Inspector General report concluded $192 million worth of natural gas was lost from pipelines in 2011 alone.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>“The limited emission reductions achieved by the distribution sector are due in large part to the fact that [distribution utilities] have little financial incentive to reduce methane emissions from leaking pipelines that do not pose a potential safety hazard,” the report said.</p>
<p>These findings echo a report prepared by Congressional staff last year. “Gas companies have little incentive to replace these leaky pipes, which span about 91,000 miles across 46 states, because they are able to pass along the cost of lost gas to consumers,” concluded<a href="http://www.markey.senate.gov/documents/markey_lost_gas_report.pdf"> a 2013 report</a> prepared by the House Natural Resources Committee Democratic staff for Edward Markey, now a Senator. “Nationally, consumers paid at least $20 billion from 2000-2011 for gas that was unaccounted for and never used, according to analysis performed for this report.” </p>
<p>Leaky natural gas distribution pipelines released methane that the agency calculated was equivalent to over 13 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2012, the report noted.</p>
<p>A close look at the <span class="caps">EPA</span> report suggests that the climate harm done by these leaks may be even more severe than the Inspector General concluded. The report notes that methane has a “global warming potential” 25 times that of carbon dioxide.<br /><br />
But, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (<span class="caps">IPCC</span>), one of the world's foremost authorities, methane's true impacts are even more severe. Back in October 2013, the <span class="caps">IPCC</span> concluded that, over a 100 year time frame, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/02/2708911/fracking-ipcc-methane/">methane is actually nearly 40 percent more powerful</a> than previously believed, and is actually 34 times more powerful than <span class="caps">CO</span>2.</p>
<p>And, since methane's effects are most concentrated over the two decades after it first hits the atmosphere, the short-term impacts are even worse — a striking 86 times the effect of an equal amount of carbon dioxide.</p>
<p>The Inspector General's audit faulted the agency for failing to take a number of steps that could help reduce leaks.<br /><br />
“The <span class="caps">EPA</span> has not issued regulations to control methane emissions from distribution pipelines, partnered with [the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration] to control such leaks, nor developed a strategy to address barriers that inhibit the mitigation of methane leaks in the natural gas distribution sector,” it said. “The <span class="caps">EPA</span> also needs to set goals and track its progress in reducing emissions from distribution pipelines through voluntary approaches to determine if future regulation would be appropriate.”</p>
<p>Speeding up efforts to repair pipelines, currently estimated to take 30 years, could spark substantial jobs growth, union officials say. A report issued last week by the Blue Green Alliance calculated that replacing those leaky pipes over the next decade would <a href="http://www.bluegreenalliance.org/news/publications/interconnected">create over 300,000 jobs and save consumers $1.5 billion</a>.</p>
<p>The Inspector General noted that a substantial amount of American natural gas pipelines are made from metals, like iron and unprotected steel, that are prone to springing leaks because of corrosion or earth disturbances.<br /><br />
“In 2012, there were more than 1.2 million miles of distribution mains in the United States,” the report said. “Of this, more than 32,000 miles of mains were cast iron or wrought iron, and more than 61,000 miles were unprotected steel.” Some cast iron pipelines are over 100 years old, they added.</p>
<p>Although the <span class="caps">EPA</span>'s methane control strategy requires the agency to study significant leaks from the oil and gas sector, when the agency released its white papers in 2014, a look at leaks from pipelines was missing, the auditors noted.</p>
<p>These numbers have important policy implications, as the Obama administration and other policy-makers consider how best to approach climate change.</p>
<p>In a July 7<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/science/climate-methane-global-warming.html?_r=1&amp;referrer="> New York Times debate</a> over the hazards posed by carbon dioxide and methane, climate scientists Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, a climate scientist at the University of Chicago, and Drew Shindell, a <span class="caps">NASA</span> climate scientist, disagreed about which gas ought to be the focus of greenhouse gas controls.</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>The methane is like a hangover that you can get over if you stop drinking,” Mr. Pierrehumbert told The Times. “<span class="caps">CO</span>2 is more like lead poisoning — it sticks around, you don’t get rid of it, and it causes irreversible harm.”</p>
<p>But others argue that during the next several decades, when methane's effects are at their strongest, the risk is that natural feedback systems like the melting of permafrost could be triggered, leading to irreversible climate shifts. And regardless, methane is most likely to impact climate change in our lifetimes. “[O]ur success in controlling <span class="caps">CO</span>2 emissions is likely to make very little difference on temperature over the next 40 years,” Mr. Shindell told the Times.</p>
<p>In the end, an aggressive approach to controlling both gasses drew the support of Times journalist Justin Gillis.<br /><br />
“The idea would be to promise far more aggressive methane control to slow global warming for the benefit of people alive today, along with aggressive <span class="caps">CO</span>2 control for the benefit of future generations,” Mr. Gillis wrote. “If the prospect of near-term climate benefits could spur a notable increase in public support for longer-term measures, too, that would certainly tilt the argument in Dr. Shindell’s favor.”</p>
<p><span style="font-size:9px;">Photo Credit: <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-181964972/stock-photo-quality-control-form-failed-is-checked.html?src=De6FTtT3htWdDxcMtkocig-1-36">Quality control form. Failed is checked, </a>via Shutterstock</span>.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1907">methane</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5133">fracking</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5565">shale gas</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6577">pipelines</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2800">natural gas</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/913">global warming</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17411">distrubution</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17412">Environmental Protect Agency</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/epa">EPA</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/14914">leaks</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4174">jobs</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17413">consumers</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17414">heating</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2940">electricity</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17415">billions</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17416">savings</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17417">cast iron</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17418">wrought iron</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17419">steel</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17420">plastic</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11808">corrosion</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1908">carbon dioxide</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8257">Global Warming Potential</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17421">underestimated</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2916">audit</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17422">internal watchdog</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11475">Failure</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17423">voluntary controls</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17424">pipeline industry</a></div></div></div>Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:00:00 +0000Sharon Kelly8345 at http://www.desmogblog.comGreenwashing Concerns Mount as Evidence of Fracking's Climate Impact Growshttp://www.desmogblog.com/2013/08/13/edf-greenwashing-fracking-climate-impact
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/shutterstock_111001004.jpg?itok=4uUy4pqB" width="200" height="200" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Several years ago, Utah public health officials realized they had a big problem on their hands – one with national implications as other states were racing to increase oil and gas drilling. Smog levels in the state’s rural Uintah basin were rivaling those found in Los Angeles or Houston on their worst days.</p>
<p>The culprit, an <span class="caps">EPA</span> <a href="http://www.platts.com/latest-news/oil/Houston/Utah-ozone-study-finds-energy-industry-is-chief-6172387">report concluded</a> earlier this year: oil and gas operations. The industry was responsible for roughly 99 percent of the volatile organic compounds found in the basin, which mixed under sunlight with nitrogen oxides – at least 57% of which also came from oil and gas development – to form the <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/50593512#50593512">choking smog</a>, so thick that the nearby Salt Lake City airport was forced to <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50812216-76/fog-monday-sunday-airport.html.csp">divert flights</a> when the smog was at its worst.</p>
<p>But the haze over the Uintah isn’t the most dangerous air pollutant coming from the oil and gas fields in the valley.</p>
<p>A string of studies by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that the core ingredient in natural gas, methane, is leaking at rates far higher than previously suspected. This methane has climate change impacts that, on a pound-for-pound basis, will be far more powerful over the next two decades than the carbon dioxide emissions that have been the focus of most climate change discussions.</p>
<p>The smog problem is especially pronounced in Utah. But a growing body of research nationwide suggests that methane is leaking from the natural gas industry at levels far higher than previously known.</p>
<p>In Washington D.C., pressure is mounting to ignore these methane leaks. The oil and gas industry says there is no time to waste. We must proceed immediately with the “all-of-the-above” national energy strategy they say, code for “drill baby drill”. This pressure is coming not only from the natural gas industry itself, but also from a surprising ally: the Environmental Defense Fund, which has supported natural gas development as a “bridge” from coal to renewables.</p>
<p>This position has drawn <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/05/24-4">renewed</a> accusations that the <span class="caps">EDF</span> is “greenwashing” for the natural gas industry.</p>
<!--break-->
<div>
<span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">“On balance, we think substituting natural gas for coal can provide net environmental value, including a lower greenhouse gas footprint,” </span><a href="http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2012/09/10/why-edf-is-working-on-natural-gas/#sthash.DRrHv9GY.dpuf" style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">wrote</a><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> <span class="caps">EDF</span>’s Mark Brownstein last year.</span><br /><p><br />
The methane leaks that researchers from the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (<span class="caps">CIRES</span>) and from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (<span class="caps">NOAA</span>) <a href="http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/08/05/cires-and-noaa-scientists-observe-significant-methane-leaks-utah-natural">recorded</a> ranged from 6 to 12 percent of annual production – worrisome because many researchers, including those from the <span class="caps">EDF</span>, say that if natural gas leaks at more than 3.2 percent overall, any climate change benefit from switching away from coal for electricity generation and burning natural gas instead will be lost.</p>
<p>This point bears restating: the federal officials who did actual site testing found leaks of methane at least double the rate that most experts say nullify natural gas' climate benefits over coal.</p>
<p>Earlier this year, the <span class="caps">EPA</span> released a report lowering its official estimate for methane leaks nationwide to 1.5 percent, but that estimate has been <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0623/Methane-leaks-of-shale-gas-may-undermine-its-climate-benefits">criticized</a> for relying too heavily on “industry guesses.”</p>
<p>Unlike the <span class="caps">EPA</span>'s estimate, the <span class="caps">NOAA</span> report is an on-the-ground measurement of leaks on one day in the Uintah, which produces 1 percent of the country’s natural gas supply.</p>
<p>One coauthor of the study, Colm Sweeney, from <span class="caps">CIRES</span> at the University of Colorado Boulder, said he was surprised by what he termed the “huge amount” of methane emissions. “We’re estimating that 9 percent of that is just leaking right out, never getting to the end of the pipeline … to the actual user point,” he <a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/news/methane-leaking-in-utah-suggests-higher-national-rate-16316">told Climate Central</a>.</p>
<p>The <span class="caps">NOAA</span> research represents one of the first major independent initiatives to take real world cumulative measurements of methane emissions from gas leaks. The researchers had to develop new methods of assessing how much of the gas had leaked, which they say can now be used by both the federal government and industry to assess leaks elsewhere.</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>We used a mass balance technique, which means we follow an air mass as it moves into the region and then flows out,” said Mr. Sweeney. “We look at the difference in methane between those two to determine an actual emissions rate for the region.”</p>
<p>There has been a dearth of data about methane leaks, especially those associated with the shale gas boom. Earlier this year, the <span class="caps">EPA</span>’s own internal watchdog, the Inspector General, <a href="http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2013/20130220-13-P-0161.pdf">called for more data</a> on air emissions from the natural gas industry, including methane leaks. But the <span class="caps">EPA</span> has resisted some of the steps the Inspector’s office recommended, the Inspector General wrote in its Feb. 20 report.</p>
<p>A few non-<span class="caps">EPA</span> studies this year have also provided data points on methane leaks.</p>
<p>Robert Jackson, a scientist at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment, and Boston University's Nathan Phillips <a href="http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059985330">measured leaks</a> from natural gas distribution systems in Boston and Washington D.C., but have yet to calculate leakage rates based on their measurements.<br /><br />
Earlier this year, <a href="http://research.noaa.gov/News/NewsArchive/LatestNews/TabId/684/ArtMID/1768/ArticleID/10070/Mystery-solved-Extra%E2%80%9D-methane-in-LAs-air-traced-to-fossil-fuel-sources.aspx">another <span class="caps">NOAA</span> study</a> used aircraft and ground measurement and found roughly 17 percent of the natural gas produced in the <span class="caps">L.A.</span> region was leaking. The <span class="caps">L.A.</span> measurements represented the region’s total leaks throughout the lifecycle of natural gas production and distribution since all of the elements involved, including drilling and <a href="http://lacreekfreak.wordpress.com/2012/06/11/fracking-in-l-a-workshops-to-be-held-on-612-and-613/">fracking</a>, distribution pipelines and end-users of the natural gas, are present in the Los Angeles basin.</p>
<p>Into this fray has stepped the Environmental Defense Fund. The <span class="caps">EDF</span> is undertaking a <a href="http://www.edf.org/methaneleakage">multi-part study</a> of methane emissions from oil and gas drilling, studying leaks at each stage, including the use of natural gas as a transportation fuel.</p>
<p>In Feb. 2012, <span class="caps">EDF</span> published <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/109/17/6435">a paper</a> that found that as long as rate of emissions from a typical well is less than 3.2 percent of lifetime production, natural gas is better than coal for electrical production. That 3.2 percent is an important number, according to <span class="caps">EDF</span>’s report – it’s the threshold at which natural gas no longer makes climate sense as a transition fuel as a replacement for coal for the nation’s electricity.</p>
<p><span class="caps">EDF</span> supports some regulation to curb methane leaks, but if the levels found in Utah, Boston and <span class="caps">L.A.</span> are indicative of leaks nationwide, it may be extremely difficult – and expensive – for the natural gas industry to achieve the extreme reductions necessary to fall below that threshold.</p>
<p><span class="caps">EDF</span> has been aggressively touting its upcoming research as the definitive study on methane leaks, yet results from the first phase of the study have been long delayed.<br /><br />
Some in the research community fear that <span class="caps">EDF</span> is positioning itself to undermine independent research by portraying its series as the only definitive science on methane leaks.</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>There are only two possible outcomes to this <span class="caps">EDF</span> study, after it’s been peer reviewed: one outcome is that the policy currently in place involves acceptable risk, the other is that it involves unacceptable risk,” said Prof. Tony Ingraffea, one of the foremost experts on methane and climate change, and the co-author of a seminal paper that first called into question the claimed climate benefits of natural gas.</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>It’s not that policy decisions have to be made, they’d have to be unmade,” if the study finds that leaks are higher than 3.2 percent, he added, citing <span class="caps">EDF</span>’s stated support for natural gas over coal.</p>
<p>Since at least December 2012, <span class="caps">EDF</span> has said that its University of Texas-led study is due out “in coming weeks.” The delays have caused speculation that either the paper ran into resistance during the peer-review process or that the methane levels found were not what the authors had anticipated.</p>
<p>In the meantime, <span class="caps">EDF</span> representatives have been giving statements to media outlets that undermine other research.</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>While the Colorado and Utah studies offer valuable snapshots of a specific place on a specific day, neither is a systematic measurement across geographies and extended time periods and that is what’s necessary to accurately scope the dimensions of the fugitive methane problem. <em>For this reason, conclusions should not be drawn about total leakage based on these preliminary, localized reports</em> [emphasis in original],” the <span class="caps">EDF</span> <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2013/01/04/measuring-fugitive-methane-emissions/">website says</a> in regards to the <span class="caps">NOAA</span> study. This post was <a href="http://energyindepth.org/mtn-states/noaas-one-day-of-data-fails-to-quiet-critics/">seized on</a> by the shale industry’s public relations arm, Energy in Depth, who used it to downplay the federal findings.</p>
<p>The <span class="caps">EDF</span>’s methane emissions study is heavily <a href="http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/03/12/devon-blasts-epa-as-it-leaves-star-program/">industry funded</a>. Those <a href="http://www.utexas.edu/news/2012/10/10/university-of-texas-at-austin-study-measures-methane-emissions-released-from-natural-gas-production/">backing</a> the University of Texas study include Anadarko, <span class="caps">BG</span> Group, Chevron, Encana, Pioneer Natural Resources, Shell, Southwestern Energy, Talisman Energy and <span class="caps">XTO</span> Energy, an ExxonMobil subsidiary.</p>
<p><span class="caps">EDF</span> itself <a href="http://www.edf.org/about">says</a> that it takes “no money from corporate partners” to <a href="http://www.edf.org/approach/partnerships/corporate-donation-policy">preserve its independence</a>.<br /><br />
But <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environmental_Defense_Fund">according to Sourcewatch</a>, “this is extremely misleading, since <span class="caps">EDF</span> does aggressively seek funding from employees, board members and investors in corporations including (and probably especially) its formal corporate partners. <span class="caps">EDF</span> also considers on a case by case basis whether to accept major donations from foundations set up by corporations.”</p>
<p>The financial backing for the <span class="caps">EDF</span>'s University of Texas study is public information and has been disclosed, meaning that their industry backing is at least transparent. What <span class="caps">EDF</span> has not disclosed is who sits on the review panel that will help to prepare the study for publication. Those individuals may help shape the conclusions that <span class="caps">EDF</span> draws from the methane leaks it records.</p>
<p>Even more importantly, researchers have been calling on the <span class="caps">EDF</span> to release the measurements it records as part of the study so that independent assessments of the data can be conducted. So far, <span class="caps">EDF</span> has been silent on whether it will release this data and essentially subject itself to the sort of <a href="http://guides.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/content.php?pid=209679&amp;sid=1746812">peer review</a> that Cornell professor Ingraffea and Duke professor Jackson did when they published their findings.</p>
<p>In terms of the long-run prospects for natural gas drilling in the <span class="caps">US</span> – indeed for the very real chance that the energy industry is in the process of tethering our climate fate to more fossil fuel extraction for decades to come – there is no question more important than this one about methane leakages. How much of the gas is actually escaping to the environment? Are those levels as bad as coal or worse for climate change? How is all this tied to the state of renewable energy growth in America?</p>
<p>For now, the only thing that seems clear is that, much as Utah has a growing smog problem, clouds seem to be gathering over <span class="caps">EDF</span>'s research.</p>
</div>
<p><span style="font-size:9px;">Image credit: <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&amp;search_source=search_form&amp;search_tracking_id=WFZ4rTjonp_nFzMw1z-3yA&amp;version=llv1&amp;anyorall=all&amp;safesearch=1&amp;searchterm=green+paint+brush&amp;search_group=&amp;orient=&amp;search_cat=&amp;searchtermx=&amp;photographer_name=&amp;people_gender=&amp;people_age=&amp;people_ethnicity=&amp;people_number=&amp;commercial_ok=&amp;color=&amp;show_color_wheel=1#id=111001004&amp;src=0_B8J-RNujlLQBggm_t3nw-1-6">Green paint brush from Shutterstock</a></span></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5133">fracking</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/913">global warming</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3066">environmental defense fund</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/noaa">NOAA</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/758">National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6010">Anthony Ingraffea</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7832">Tony Ingraffea</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9637">Uintah Basin</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1876">Utah</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7306">Smog</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5137">hydraulic fracturing</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2800">natural gas</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/662">coal</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9021">methane emissions</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13391">industry-funded science</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/epa">EPA</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1471">Environmental Protection Agency</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13392">EPA Inspector General</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13393">Obama energy strategy</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6641">Bridge Fuel</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8983">EDF</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13394">Mark Brownstein</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13395">Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES)</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13396">methane leaks</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13397">natural gas life cycle</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8257">Global Warming Potential</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11915">greenhouse gasses</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1908">carbon dioxide</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13398">methane leaks in Boston</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13399">MA</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13400">methane leaks in Washington D.C.</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5977">Anadarko</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7545">BG Group</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/chevron">chevron</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/encana">encana</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13401">Pioneer Natural Resources</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1268">shell</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13402">Southwestern Energy</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5762">talisman energy</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5430">XTO Energy</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/657">ExxonMobil</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/sourcewatch">sourcewatch</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1882">greenwashing</a></div></div></div>Tue, 13 Aug 2013 14:00:00 +0000Sharon Kelly7389 at http://www.desmogblog.comThe Cornell Team Redux: Shale Gas a Disaster for Climate http://www.desmogblog.com/cornell-team-redux-shale-gas-disaster-climate
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/Picture%203_0.png?itok=1T5Pi9u-" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Unconventional gas offers no advantage over other fossil fuels when considering its impact on the climate, according to <a href="http://216.250.243.12/HowarthIngraffeanewsreleaseFINAL3.pdf">a new report from a group of researchers at Cornell University</a>. The Cornell Team, who made waves in the shale debate with <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/e384226wr4160653/fulltext.pdf">groundbreaking research on methane leakage in gas production</a> are challenging the gas industry’s claim that gas offers a clean, environmentally-friendly alternative to conventional fossil fuels. The team, comprised of Robert Howarth, Anthony Ingraffea and Renee Santoro, recently released a companion study to their contentious<a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/e384226wr4160653/fulltext.pdf"> April 2011 report</a>, continuing to reveal that shale gas is inadequate as a bridge fuel and may be worse for climate change in the long run than coal.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://216.250.243.12/HowarthIngraffeaarticleFINAL1.pdf">team’s new study</a> analyzes the combined effect of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over a 20-year timeframe. Investigating the impact of emissions from both electricity generation, which accounts for about 30 percent of <span class="caps">US</span> gas usage, and heat generation, which accounts for the majority of the country’s gas usage, the report emphasizes the enormous projected role of unconventional gas – and its associated emissions – in America’s energy future. </p>
<!--break-->
<div>
Gas currently accounts for nearly a fifth of the total <span class="caps">U.S.</span> greenhouse gas emissions. That portion is expected to rise to nearly one quarter in the near future. Given the dramatic role methane emissions play in a warming atmosphere, the Cornell team is urging <span class="caps">US</span> lawmakers to reevaluate the current regulatory regime monitoring and enforcing emission caps for the industry.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
In a <a href="http://216.250.243.12/HowarthIngraffeanewsreleaseFINAL3.pdf">press release</a> Ingraffea framed the issue as one requiring immediate policy response: “Can shale-gas methane emissions be reduced? Clearly yes, and proposed <span class="caps">EPA</span> regulations to require capture of gas at the time of well completions are an important step. Regulations are necessary to accomplish emission reductions, as economic considerations alone have not driven such reductions.“</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Ingraffea’s concern is that we are committing ourselves too readily to unconventional gas without considering the long-term consequences of that shift. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
“It may be extremely expensive to reduce leakage associated with aging infrastructure, particularly distribution pipelines in cities but also long-distance transmission pipelines, which are on average more than 50 years old in the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Should society invest massive capital in such improvements for a bridge fuel that is to be used for only 20 to 30 years, or would the capital be better spent on constructing a smart electric grid and other technologies that move towards a truly green energy future?” he asked.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
If the benefits of unconventional gas are being overstated, as this team believes they are, then the real threat unconventional gas poses to our climate is not being fully considered. Howarth believes the full-scale, cumulative impacts of unconventional gas should be more realistically considered, especially given our rapid approach to what the team calls a <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n4/full/nclimate1143.html">climatic “tipping point.”</a></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Methane is a major component of unconventional gas and <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/e384226wr4160653/fulltext.pdf">its characteristically high global warming potential</a> (<span class="caps">GWP</span>) is a driving factor in the team’s sense of urgency. Because methane has 105 times the <span class="caps">GWP</span> of carbon dioxide, the team is working to emphasize the impact of methane emissions on a 20-year timescale, something critics have slighted as<a href="http://www.thegwpf.org/press-releases/2938-new-report-shale-gas-shock-challenges-climate-and-energy-policies.html"> unrealistic</a>. Although methane is much more potent than carbon dioxide, it has a tenfold shorter duration in the atmosphere.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
But the Cornell team thinks we need to start considering the short-term, and making better decisions faster. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
“We believe the preponderance of evidence indicates shale gas has a larger greenhouse gas footprint than conventional gas, considered over any time scale. The greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas also exceeds that of oil or coal when considered at decadal time scales, no matter how the gas is used,” <a href="http://216.250.243.12/HowarthIngraffeanewsreleaseFINAL3.pdf">says Howarth</a>. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The Cornell Team has had no welcome reception among gas industry support groups. <a href="http://www.energyindepth.org/">Energy in Depth</a>, the industry-funded front group, led a vitriolic attack against the Cornell team after the release of their initial report, calling their findings a <a href="http://www.energyindepth.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Five-Things-to-Know-About-the-Cornell-Shale-Study.pdf">shale gas smear</a>. This time around their attack has been <a href="http://www.energyindepth.org/there-they-go-again-latest-cornell-paper-just-more-of-the-same/">equally formidable</a>.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
But the Cornell team is undeterred. “We stand by the conclusion of our 2011 research: ‘The large [greenhouse gas] footprint of shale gas undercuts the logic of its use as a bridging fuel over coming decades, if the goal is to reduce global warming.”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
And it's probably worthwhile noting that the goal of the gas industry, and their coalition of public relations groups, is not to reduce global warming. It's to sell gas.</div>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/913">global warming</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1907">methane</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1908">carbon dioxide</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2964">Cornell University</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5133">fracking</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5565">shale gas</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6010">Anthony Ingraffea</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6011">Robert Howarth</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6133">gas drilling</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6344">unconventional gas</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8254">Cornell Team</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8255">Methane Leakage</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8256">Renee Santoro</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8257">Global Warming Potential</a></div></div></div>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 18:53:27 +0000Carol Linnitt6018 at http://www.desmogblog.com